Frank Walker asks some hard questions !!!

NEWS

FRANK WALKER: TRAD MEDIA FLIPPED IN 2013, WHY? FOLLOW THE MONEY

VIDEO

FROM ROME EDITOR

Frank Walker asks some hard questions, for which Trad Inc. needs to respond. He shows how the Munich protest was done not out of Faith but on the basis of secular concepts, emptied of the supernatural.

This is the same media which systematically ignores Bishop Gracida’s call for investigation and canonical responses to patent corruption and lawless behavior. Why?

This magnificent and timely commentary comes only from Canon212.com. Remember to make a donation on Mr. Walker’s YouTube Page to thank him for speaking the truth.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

LINEAGE MAY NOT BE AS IMPORTANT IN THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS AS IT IS IN ROYALTY BUT DON'T KID YOURSELF, IT IS IMPORTANT TO EVERY CARDINAL AND BISHOP

CHURCH HISTORYTEAM BERGOGLIO

THE HOUSE OF CARDINAL RE

FROM ROME EDITOR2 COMMENTS

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

It is not easy for Catholics to understand why Cardinals do and do not do what they do. Especially in these times, when the Cardinals should be warning and reproving and taking steps to clean up the mess at the Vatican, which is leading the apostasy of the world.

For this “why” I cannot give an explanation. But understanding where Cardinals come from and to which faction in the Church they may belong, may shed some light on this “why”, however so superficial.

With this in mind, let us examine the Faction of Cardinals which has as its co-consecrator, Giovanni Battista Re, one of the most important Cardinals in the College of Cardinals, which is seen by the fact that Bergoglio selected him to be Vice-Dean of his college of cardinals on June 10, 2017. A position he has weathered despite the unceremonious demotion of the Cardinal Dean of many years, Cardinal Sodano, in December.

Let me begin by saying that Cardinal Re’s episcopal lineage does not descend from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, the god-father of the St Gallen Mafia. It descends rather from Pope John Paul II.

Second, that Cardinal Re is an impressive Bishop in action. He has participated in over 165 Episcopal consecrations in his life time. A truly remarkable number, which makes him one of the greatest all time consecrators of bishops in the Church. This is due to the fact, that when Pope John Paul II consecrated Bishops, Cardinal Re was normally assisting as a co-consecrator, by some special arrangement of the Pope.

Normally, factions in the Church among Bishops are denoted by lineages of principal consecrators, not co-consecrators. A principal consecrator is the Bishop who presides over the consecration of a man who has been nominated to be a bishop. A co-consecrator is one of two or more Bishops who assist in the consecration of the nominated.

However, Cardinal Re was not the principal consecrator of any Bishop who later became a Cardinal. A fact which means, that no one upon whom his favor rested that much, was ever raised to the dignity of a Cardinal. However, he is the co-consecrator of 18 Cardinals, which is extraordinary. Nevertheless, this seems to be because these future Cardinals were all consecrated by Pope John Paul II, with few exceptions.

Let me list the names of those Bishops and Cardinals, in the order of the year they were co-consecrated Bishop by Cardinal Re. You might recognize someone you know:

Patriarch Michel Sabbah (1988)
Archbishop Marian Oles † (1988)
Archbishop Emery Kabongo Kanundowi (1988)
Bishop Luís d’Andrea, O.F.M. Conv. † (1988)
Bishop Victor Adibe Chikwe † (1988)
Bishop Athanasius Atule Usuh † (1988)
Bishop José Raúl Vera López, O.P. (1988)
Bishop Srecko Badurina, T.O.R. † (1988)
Bishop Luigi Belloli † (1988)
Bishop John Gavin Nolan † (1988)
José Cardinal Saraiva Martins, C.M.F. (1988)
Bishop Giuseppe Matarrese (1989) ###
Archbishop Giovanni Tonucci (1990)
Archbishop Ignazio Bedini, S.D.B. (1990)
Archbishop Mario Milano (1990)
Archbishop Giovanni Ceirano † (1990)
Archbishop Oscar Rizzato (1990)
Antonio Ignacio Cardinal Velasco Garcia, S.D.B. † (1990)
Archbishop Paul Runangaza Ruzoka (1990)
Bishop Marian Błażej Kruszyłowicz, O.F.M. Conv. (1990)
Bishop Pierre François Marie Joseph Duprey, M. Afr. † (1990)
Archbishop Domenico Umberto D’Ambrosio (1990)
Bishop Edward Dajczak (1990)
Bishop Benjamin de Jesus Almoneda (1990)
Archbishop Francesco Gioia, O.F.M. Cap. (1990)
Archbishop Edward Nowak (1990)
Archbishop Giacinto Berloco (1990)
Archbishop Erwin Josef Ender (1990)
Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran † (1991)
Vinko Cardinal Puljić (1991)
Archbishop Marcello Costalunga † (1991)
Archbishop Osvaldo Padilla (1991)
Francisco Javier Cardinal Errázuriz Ossa, P. Schönstatt (1991)
Bishop Bruno Pius Ngonyani (1991)
Bishop Francis Emmanuel Ogbonna Okobo (1991)
Bishop Andrea Gemma, F.D.P. † (1991)
Bishop Joseph Habib Hitti (1991)
Bishop Jacinto Guerrero Torres † (1991)
Bishop Bl. Alvaro del Portillo y Diez de Sollano † (1991)
Julián Cardinal Herranz Casado (1991)
Archbishop Bruno Bertagna † (1991)
Archbishop Ernesto Maria Fiore † (1992)
Archbishop Rino Passigato (1992)
Bishop Juan Matogo Oyana, C.M.F. (1992)
Bishop Gastone Simoni (1992)
Bishop Iñaki Mallona Txertudi, C.P. (1992)
Bishop Philippe Nkiere Keana, C.I.C.M. (1992)
Bishop Benjamin David de Jesus, O.M.I. † (1992)
Bishop John Joseph Glynn † (1992)
Bishop Petar Šolic † (1992)
Michael Louis Cardinal Fitzgerald, M. Afr. (1992)
Bishop Henri Salina, C.R.A. † (1992)
Archbishop Diego Causero (1993)
Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle (1993)
Elio Cardinal Sgreccia † (1993)
Bishop Henryk Marian Tomasik (1993)
Archbishop Henry Joseph Mansell (1993)
Bishop Jan Kopiec (1993)
Archbishop Alojzij Uran (1993)
Bishop Luigi Sposito † (1993)
Bishop Norbert Klemens Strotmann Hoppe, M.S.C. (1993)
Bishop Elmo Noel Joseph Perera † (1993)
Archbishop Csaba Ternyák (1993)
Archbishop Domenico De Luca † (1993) ###
Archbishop Peter Paul Prabhu † (1994)
Archbishop Peter Stephan Zurbriggen (1994)
Archbishop Jean-Paul Aimé Gobel (1994)
Bishop Julien Mawule Kouto † (1994)
Bishop Edward James Slattery (1994)
Bishop Uriah Adolphus Ashley Maclean (1994)
Bishop Emiliano Antonio Cisneros Martínez, O.A.R. (1994)
Bishop Américo do Couto Oliveira † (1994)
Bishop Christo Proykov (1994)
Archbishop Ramon Cabrera Argüelles (1994)
Bishop Ricardo Jorge Valenzuela Rios (1994)
Bishop Paolo Gillet (1994)
Bishop Antoni Józef Długosz (1994)
Archbishop Bruno Musarò (1995)
Bishop Petko Jordanov Christov, O.F.M. Conv. (1995)
Bishop Antonio Napoletano, C.SS.R. † (1995)
Bishop Zacharias Cenita Jimenez † (1995)
Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke (1995)
Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez † (1995)
Bishop Pierfranco Pastore † (1995)
Bishop Stanislav Szyrokoradiuk, O.F.M. (1995)
Bishop Paweł Cieślik (1995)
Bishop Stefan Regmunt (1995)
Archbishop Charles Asa Schleck, C.S.C. † (1995)
Archbishop Luigi Ventura (1995) ###
Carlo Cardinal Caffarra † (1995)
Archbishop José Paulino Ríos Reynoso (1996)
Archbishop Riccardo Fontana (1996)
Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli (1996)
Archbishop Jaime Vieira Rocha (1996)
Kurt Cardinal Koch (1996)
Bishop Ārvaldis Andrejs Brumanis † (1996)
Bishop Antons Justs † (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Pérez González (1996)
Archbishop Richard Anthony Burke, S.P.S. (1996)
Bishop Marko Sopi † (1996)
Bishop Rafael Ramón Conde Alfonzo (1996)
Bishop Riccardo Ruotolo † (1996)
Bishop Antal Majnek, O.F.M. (1996)
Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko (1996)
Archbishop Francisco Gil Hellín (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Conti (1996) ###
Archbishop Luigi Pezzuto (1997)
Paolo Cardinal Sardi † (1997) Titular Bishop of Sutri, Italy
Varkey Cardinal Vithayathil, C.SS.R. † (1997)
Bishop Delio Lucarelli (1997)
Bishop Ignace Baguibassa Sambar-Talkena † (1997)
Bishop Luciano Pacomio (1997)
Archbishop Angelo Massafra, O.F.M. (1997)
Bishop Florentin Crihălmeanu (1997)
Archbishop Jean-Claude Périsset (1997)
Bishop Piotr Libera (1997)
Bishop Basílio do Nascimento (1997)
Bishop Hil Kabashi, O.F.M. (1997)
Leonardo Cardinal Sandri (1997) ###
Mario Francesco Cardinal Pompedda † (1998)
Archbishop Marco Dino Brogi, O.F.M. (1998)
Bishop Peter Kwaku Atuahene (1998)
Bishop Filippo Strofaldi † (1998)
Archbishop Wiktor Paweł Skworc (1998)
Bishop Franco Dalla Valle, S.D.B. † (1998)
Archbishop Angelito Rendon Lampon, O.M.I. (1998)
Bishop Tomislav Koljatic Maroevic (1998)
Bishop Francesco Saverio Salerno † (1998)
Archbishop Alessandro D’Errico (1999)
Archbishop Salvatore Pennacchio (1999)
Archbishop Alain Paul Charles Lebeaupin (1999)
Bishop Cesare Mazzolari, M.C.C.I. † (1999)
Bishop Pierre Trân Ðinh Tu (1999)
Bishop Rafael Cob García (1999)
Archbishop Mathew Moolakkatt, O.S.B. (1999)
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (1999)
Bishop José Luis Redrado Marchite, O.H. (1999)
(Layman) Józef Wesołowski † (2000)
Archbishop Giacomo Guido Ottonello (2000)
Archbishop George Panikulam (2000)
Archbishop Alberto Bottari de Castello (2000)
Bishop Ivo Baldi Gaburri (2000)
Archbishop Gabriel Mbilingi, C.S.Sp. (2000)
Bishop David Laurin Ricken (2000)
Bishop Anton Coşa (2000)
Bishop András Veres (2000)
Péter Cardinal Erdő (2000)
Bishop Giuseppe Pasotto, C.S.S. (2000)
Bishop Franco Croci (2000)
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (2000) ###
Fernando Cardinal Filoni (2001)
Archbishop Henryk Józef Nowacki (2001)
Archbishop Timothy Paul Andrew Broglio (2001)
Archbishop Domenico Sorrentino (2001)
Archbishop Tomash (Tomasz) Bernard Peta (2001)
Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo (2001)
Marc Armand Cardinal Ouellet, P.S.S. (2001)
Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi (2001)
Bishop Đura Džudžar (2001)
Bishop Fabio Fabene (2014) ###

Now look at that list again. I have colored in RED the Cardinals who were suspected as members of the group which engineered the election of Bergoglio in the uncanonical Conclave of 2013. They formed a group called by Austen Ivereigh, “Team Bergoglio”. There are at least 3, Cardinal Koch, Bishop of Basel Switzerland might be the fourth.

I have colored in Green, those who were Cardinal Electors in 2013, but whose allegiance in voting is not known. There are 7 of these, not counting Cardinal Koch.

I have colored in BLUE the men whom Bergoglio presumed to name Cardinals. I say presumed, because as an Anti-pope, he has no authority to name Cardinals (To do that you need to hold the petrine munus, which Pope Benedict clearly and textually never renounced.)  There are 2 Cardinals in this category.

Three of the Cardinals on this list are publicly known for having criticized the Bergoglian regime: Cardinal Sandri, who is rumored to have bitterly denounced Bergoglio to his face for attacking the Discipline of the Sacraments; Cardinal Caffara who was renounced for denouncing relativism (God rest his soul); and Cardinal Burke, whose reputation is such it need not be summarized here, after his numerous public statements in favor of the Eternal Faith and in criticism of the policies of Bergoglio, even if he continues to hold Bergoglio as the Pope.

The Cardinals and Bishops whose episcopal lineage descends from Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, are marked with a ### in Black (there are 3); those who descend from Cardinal de Lai, both of whose co-consecrators descend from Cardinal Rampolla, or from Cardinal Gasparri, the secretary of Cardinal Rampolla, are marked with a ### in Red (There are 5, nearly all Sodano men).

I think it is important to note, that in all the cases in which Cardinal Re is not assisting Pope John Paul II as principal consecrator, he is assisting an ally or direct descendant of Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro.

The only reasonable inference that can be made from that, is that Cardinal Re was a member of the St. Gallen Mafia, by adoption. And that would explain why he is now Vice-Dean of Bergoglio’s college of cardinals.

The fact that he was trusted by Pope John Paul II in so many ceremonies of episcopal ordination, shows that he succeed so well in gaining the confidence of the Pope that he served as a sort of minder of his activities during his pontificate. This may imply that Cardinal Re was one of the chief St. Gallen Mafia secret agents in the Vatican for many years, hiding in plain sight.

So the next time you ask why any Cardinal on this list, like Cardinal Burke, may not be doing what you want him to do, read this list and contemplate what it might mean. They might be hedging, so that in the next conclave they elect someone from the House of Cardinal Re, which, alas, might not be a good thing after all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ECONOMICS 101


The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez School of Economics

Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro|Posted: Jan 22, 2020 12:01 AM  Share (165)  Tweet The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez School of Economics

Source: CNN/Screenshot  Trending

On Monday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-N.Y.), sat for a discussion with author Ta-Nehisi Coates. She dropped a number of shocking statements — statements that elicited nothing but murmurs of agreement from Coates. AOC claimed: “No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars.” How, pray tell, are American billionaires responsible for such massive theft? According to AOC, the very mechanisms of capitalism mandate such theft. In her view, successful businesspeople simply exploit their workers while maximizing their profits. Hypothetically speaking about billionaires making widgets, she said: “You didn’t make those widgets! You sat on a couch while thousands of people were paid modern-day slave wages and, in some cases, real modern-day slavery…You made that money off the backs of undocumented people.”

This, of course, is nonsense. Voluntary exchange of labor for wages is, as stated, voluntary, and the fact that there are many people willing and able to labor in the manufacture of widgets is presumably responsible for lower wages. Companies that refuse to pay their workers market wages will soon watch those workers migrate to other businesses or other industries. It is a patent violation of free market principles to utilize force in order to compel someone to work for you; blaming the free market for coercion is like blaming free speech for censorship. Exploitation in labor markets is typically accompanied by government subsidies, regulation and interventionism.CARTOONS | GARY VARVELVIEW CARTOON 

So, how does AOC magically turn economic freedom into economic tyranny? By suggesting that truefreedom lies in collective control of the means of production: “If you’re a billionaire, that means that you control a massive system…It means that you have a massive labor force under your control, and to be ethical if you’re a billionaire today, the thing that you need to do is give up control and power.” But to whom would such power and control be given? AOC suggests that major companies be turned into worker cooperatives — companies whose workers own and control the business.

But, of course, that doesn’t solve her problem: If workers own and control the business, they are properly classified as capitalists. They will have to make decisions to make the business competitive, which means keeping wages competitive, for example. This is precisely what has happened with one of the world’s biggest worker collectives, the Spanish Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, whose worker-owners have “learned to think like the shareholders of any other global business,” according to The Guardian. In fact, most companies begin with a few workers who pool their capital and labor: Facebook, for example, handed out stock options to employees, resulting in a $23 billion valuation for their initial employees when the company went public. Does that make those workers evil capitalists?

In the end, what AOC  truly wants is government control. Worker collectives won’t do the trick. Only top-down government redefinition of the value of labor will. When AOC claims that capitalists merely leech off the true  value of labor, she suggests that labor can be measured without reference to the market. How would AOC measure the value of such labor? Presumably through appeals to “fairness.” There is only one problem with this method: It simply doesn’t work. Consumers determine the value of products; producers do not. The diffuse informational system of the free market, which rewards the power of entrepreneurship, rather than punishing it, creates prosperity; top-down control creates poverty. In fact, the greatest guarantee of the sort of poverty AOC decries is the destruction of the same system she decries.

RecommendedDem Impeachment Manager Lofgren Upends Her Own Case in Opening StatementCortney O’Brien

But according to AOC, we have nothing to fear from government, and “the government is us.” The fact that Coates, one of the most prominent writers on the evils of Jim Crow, nodded along should demonstrate that those on the left do not understand the consequences of their own philosophy. The government is not “us,” because we are not a collective. We are individuals with rights. But in AOC’s world, we have no rights — we have only our role as members of a collective controlled by those who agree with her. And that is exploitation and tyranny.

Ben Shapiro, 36, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller “The Right Side of History.” He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles. To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CROSSED THE RUBICON AND THE FUTURE DOES NOT LOOK ANY BETTER FOR THEM THAN IT DID FOR JULIUS CAESAR

COMMENTARYNEWS Share Tweet Email Print

Poll: Impeachment Continues To Backfire as Majority Oppose Removing Trump

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) speaks at a news conference to announce the impeachment managers on Capitol Hill on Jan. 15, 2020, in Washington, D.C.Olivier Douliery / AFP via Getty ImagesSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) speaks at a news conference to announce the impeachment managers on Capitol Hill on Jan. 15, 2020, in Washington, D.C. (Olivier Douliery / AFP via Getty Images)By C. Douglas Golden
Published January 21, 2020 at 8:53amShare on FacebookTweetEmailPrint

My personal favorite Latin saying is “alea iacta est.”

That’s what Julius Caesar is purported to have said when his armies crossed the Rubicon river in 49 B.C. (The only living witness to this is Larry King, so we have to take his word for it.) Translation: “The die is cast.”

Advertisement – story continues below

Caesar, who was then in the midst of fighting the Roman Civil War, had taken his armies beyond what was then the northern boundary of Italy in defiance of the Roman Senate.

At that point, he knew he’d reached the point of no return.

This is where “crossing the Rubicon” comes from, as well, but there’s no better way to wax pseudo-intellectually than to use Latin phraseology in place of an English idiom.

TRENDING: As House Dems Get Out of Impeachment Quagmire, Maxine Waters Drags Them Right Back In

Plus, it’s not like anyone knows where the Rubicon is, anyway.

We have a different caliber of officials than ol’ Julius these days, which is a bit of a good news/bad news situation.

Advertisement – story continues below

The good news, at least in our country, is that they’re elected — unlike Caesar, whose ejection from office was a bit less orderly than if it had happened at the ballot box.

The bad news is that they don’t quite know when to cast the die.

Do you think President Tump should be convicted and removed from office?

Yes No 
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her House Democratic caucus, for instance, had an “alea iacta est” moment a few weeks ago.

They, like everyone else in the country, were no doubt aware of how polling was trending when it came to the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump.

According to the RealClearPolitics average, since mid-December, a plurality of Americans have been against it or the polling average has been a tie.

Advertisement – story continues below

This is as opposed to the high-water mark of mid-October, when 49.5 percent were for removing Trump from office compared to 44.8 percent against it.

In December, the Democrats threw the die for the first time.

RELATED: Even Dem Senator Who Vowed To Convict Trump Says House Dems Didn’t Do Their Job

This involved the impeachment vote against Trump, which coincided almost precisely with the moment the polling average began turning against the Democrats.

One could say the die had been cast long before the vote had been taken; the impeachment inquiry, like an ocean liner at full steam toward a predetermined destination, is a tricky and unwieldy thing to turn in an instant.

Advertisement – story continues below

They were no closer to removing him, but they’d rolled the dice and taken their chances. And the polling average continued to turn against them.

Since then, they’ve cast the die again, this time in terms of their messaging in the run-up to the trial.

Because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold the Senate trial that Democrats would have preferred — which is to say, messy and protracted, with privileges and protections afforded to Democrats in the Senate that Democrats would have never dreamed of extending to Republicans in the House — Pelosi decided to sit on the articles and only handed them to the Senate last Wednesday.

Even then, the Democrats made sure to let America know how solemn and somber an occasion the delivery of the articles was — I mean, if you discount the signing ceremony with those nifty pens.

Advertisement – story continues below

Now that most Senate Republicans have made it clear they don’t support allowing new witnesses to be called — that should have been the House’s job, not the Senate’s — Democrats are predictably livid.

“He doesn’t want to hear any of the evidence and he doesn’t want to hear any new evidence,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said of McConnell, according to the U.K. Daily Mail. “That’s a cover-up, not a trial.”

This petulance, presumably, will last throughout the trial, however long it goes.

How’s that party line holding up? A newly released poll from Gallup of 1,014 U.S. adults surveyed between Jan. 2 and Jan. 15 — as much of this messaging was taking form — shows that if it’s having an effect, it’s not an observable one.

Advertisement – story continues below

“Forty-six percent of Americans say they would like their senators to vote to convict Trump and remove him from office, while 51% want their senators to vote against conviction so Trump will remain as president,” a statement from Gallup, released along with the poll on Monday, read.

“Like his approval rating, Trump’s impeachment figures are also sharply divided along partisan lines. Ninety-three percent of Republicans are opposed to convicting Trump and 84% of Democrats favor doing so. Independents are evenly divided, with 49% in favor and 46% opposed.”

The poll’s margin of error was plus-or minus-4 percentage points.

These numbers are, like the larger polling average, flipped from last autumn.

Advertisement – story continues below

In October, a Gallup poll found that 52 percent of respondents favored Trump’s impeachment and removal compared to 46 percent who were opposed.

So maybe the American public isn’t in favor of impeaching and removing the president, but perhaps this whole controversy is souring conservatives and independents on Trump?

Again, not so much.

“As the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump begins, 44% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. Trump’s approval rating has been steady in the past three polls — between 43% and 45% — slightly above the 39% to 41% ratings he received as the impeachment inquiry started in the fall,” Gallup’s Monday release read.

Advertisement – story continues below

“Trump’s recent job approval ratings — though below the historical average 53% for post-World War II presidents — are among the highest of his presidency. His personal best is 46%, while he has averaged 40% job approval for his entire term.”

One poll taken in isolation isn’t much of a big thing unless you take into account this is how things have been trending, more or less.

The RealClearPolitics average has Trump’s job approval at 44.2 percent, essentially the same as Gallup poll.

It also shows the same trend: His approval hit a low in October and has since rebounded.

Advertisement – story continues below

The events of the last two months have changed little.

The die has been cast multiple times and the Rubicon has been crossed.

There were plenty of times the Democrats could have turned back. But, even staring down poll numbers that should have disabused them of any desire to go the way of impeachment, they marched on unabated.

At least Caesar became the dictator of the Roman Republic for his trouble.

Advertisement – story continues below

Nancy Pelosi can’t even get a decent poll.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.Submit a Correction
Share on FacebookTweetEmailPrint

C. Douglas GoldenContributor, CommentarySummary More Info Recent Posts ContactC. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal for four years.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

GOD BLESS DR. Roberto de Mattei FOR ORGANIZING THE PROTEST IN MUNICH

EDITORIALSNEWS

STEVEN O’REILLY, ON THIS, DESERVES TO BE HEARD!

FROM ROME EDITOR

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In war, every ally is a welcome guest. Likewise, in the effort to defend and restore pope Benedict, everyone earnest in the cause, cannot help but praise the sound voices of criticism which are breaking up the controlled narrative of the “Bergoglio is certainly pope. Shut up!” Crowd.

I honestly admit, that more than a year ago, when Mr. O’Reilly attacked me for my Scholastic Question, I never thought he would make such a step. But with the passing of time, he has shown himself to have infinitely more intellectual integrity than many in Trad. Inc..

He has even called for an Imperfect Council in three posts. Which is even more than myself, I think! So, as I always admire my betters, I want to point the readers of FromRome.Info to Mr. Reilly’s excellent post, entitled, If a Catholic protest happens in a forest … does it make a sound. A title suggested by a philosophical maxim of Locke, if I remember correctly, about unobserved causes not being causes or knowable as such.

His topic of discussion, is the private, secret, by invitation only, protest organized in Munich by Dr. Roberto de Mattei, head of the Fondazione Lepanto, here at Rome.

At the beginning of his short essay, Steven O’Reilly writes:

As I understand it, the small protest was invite only (100+), it was organized in secret, and the protesters gathered at the site without even notifying the local archdiocese of their purpose. When I heard this was the general outline of how this meeting came to be and I read Fr. Z’s excellent post (see here) on the Munich demonstration, an old saying came to mind: “if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?” I don’t know why necessarily, but this morphed into the thought: “if there is a Catholic protest in a forest, and there is no one around, does it make a sound?” Does anyone hear it?  Does it have an impact?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Remember #UniteTheClans ? Wherein Fr. Z rants.

Posted on 18 January 2020 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

UPDATE:

From a friend:

My German friend who attended today told me that De Mattei wanted it kept quiet as he was afraid Marx would step in and shut it down. Apparently the state and Marx work closely together.

It seems to me that that in itself would have been newsworthy.

____ Originally Published on: Jan 18, 2020

This morning my phone starts ringing from a German number.

An old friend had heard that there was going to be a protest in Munich with recitation of the Rosary against the German bishops and their nutty synodal process.  Rather like what was done in Rome before the rigged October Pachamama Synod (“walking together”).  That was Acies Ordinata.

My friend would have gladly gone to Munich to participate but he had no advance warning that it was going to take place.  He heard also that there would be a presser afterwards. He was willing and eager to go to it, even if he missed the protest.

I reached out to get some information for him, BUT, I as learned, it was sort of a secret demonstration.

A secret demonstration?

A press conference afterwards?  By whom and for whom?

I’m afraid it was merely for each other, for the people who were on the inside, in the know.

Just as I write, I see that Ed Pentin is posting on Twitter about the protest at presser.  Archbp. Viganò showed up in his FIRST PUBLIC APPEARANCE in a long time.  

Pentin also wrote at the National Catholic Register after the fact.

Gee whiz.  I would have liked to be there for that, to lend support.

What I am afraid that we have here, my friends, on the traditional side of things, is a self-licking ice cream cone.

And not even a well packed ice cream cone.

While looking for information on the protest in Munich by Acies Ordinata I found this.

I love that… 18 Gennaio and January 28… and it’s “It’s time for clarity and coherence!”

Problem: not only is the date screwed up, but nowhere on that single page site do you find the PLACE and the TIME of the protest.

What were they worried about?  Thugs from the German Bishops Conference?

Was it secret because Archbp. Viganò was going to be there and they were worried that someone from the Holy See might try to stick him with a radioactive needle.

Actually, that’s not outside the realm of possibility.

I now see, just now, as I refresh that screen, that the banner has been changed to a photo from that protest in front of the Theatinerkirche.

I see John Henry Weston of LifeSite.  No advance news of this on LifeSite.

I see Robert de Mattei.  Nothing on the Lepanto site.

I see the young Austrian idol thrower, Alexander Tschugguel.  Nothing at his Boniface Institute page.

I see Michael Matt.  There is a post, posted today, the day of the protest, at The Remnant.  It says…

 Representatives of the many different Catholic action groups around the world will unite in Munich, Germany today in a peaceful demonstration of silent but prayerful protest against the German Bishops’ Conference “synodal way”.

Oh really?   Many different action groups?  Who would they be?  Do they have some sort of secret handshake or decoder ring so that only they know what’s going to happen, lest anyone who doesn’t share the code might participate?  Is there a “black list”?  Are they using encrypted comms so that word doesn’t get out?  Is there some sort of purity pedigree you have to pass?

It seems to me that if you want real action, you don’t do things on the sly.

Look, I think all these people are terrific. They are dedicated Catholics.  They see that things aren’t going well.  They want to do something.

I don’t think that the self-licking ice cream cone approach is the most effective.

Things are obviously not going well in the Church.  Because our Lord underwent His Passion, the Church also must undergo her own time of torment and upheaval.  I maintain that God, who disposes all things, gave us a magnificent honor to live in these troubled times.

Because of that great gift from Our Lord, to be called into existence at this time in the history of salvation, we have to roll up our sleeves and do our part even as God showers graces on us.  The harder the times, the greater the graces.  What an honor.

Think of the honor God gave to the Jews who, with a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other, worked together under Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.  And their enemies were not as spiritually dangerous as our are today.

May I return to a theme I’ve punched at for years?

What is it about traditional and conservative Catholics that makes them atomize themselves into small groups that won’t cooperate with each other?  We obviously see some cooperation among this little group of groups in Munich.

A few months ago, the same Michael Matt of The Remnant put out a call to UNITE THE CLANS.   A great idea then.  A better ideal now.   However, it’s ironic that his post at The Remnant was called also Mission Impossible.

When Michael Matt called to Unite The Clans I was right there.  HERE

In that post, Michael wrote:

What we’ve got here are two old war horses who’ve not always seen eye-to-eye on everything over the past 25 years, but who nevertheless know Devils when we see them. Unite the clans with Father Z? You bet!  I’m proud to stand together with him against the demons attempting to destroy our beloved Church.

So when not even I have a clue something is going on, I wonder how committed they really are.

The last time that the hashtag #UniteTheClans was used on Twitter was 24 November of last year.

Meanwhile, catholic libs set aside small differences, create fronts, and roll over everyone in their path.

Why don’t Catholics work together?

It seems to me that many on our side of the spectrum are so dedicated to protecting their little wrinkle of turf that they are afraid of the success of others.

Someone is going to have to emerge as a good leader with a good vision and leadership skill to do some uniting.  It’ll have to be a layperson, I think.  As Fulton Sheen said:

“Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops.”

Let’s think of this in terms of strategy.

  • What are the threats to the Church?  Concretely?
  • What the enemies’ centers of gravity?
  • What are the measures we have to take to overcome?
  • How do we destroy, neutralize or coopt their centers of gravity?

None of that is going to happen without united action and concrete work.

Realistically… ask yourself…

  • What are we going to do if they actually start ordaining married men or women as deacons?
  • How far is too far to be pushed?  How much nonsense is enough?

Hence…

  • Who are the people who will lead in the future?
  • What do I, personally, have to give up in order to make the mission work?
  • What do certain organizations have to give up in order to cooperate with others?
  • How can I help?
  • Am I complacent in what I now have?
  • Is my ego in the way of our collective success?

It tears at my heart daily to see what is going on in the Church.

Once again, I ask that people on the more conservative and traditional side of things do an examination of conscience, set aside smaller differences, and start repairing the walls together.Please share!FacebookGmailEmailPrintFriendlyPrintPinterestKindle ItWhatsApp

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

"If we are willing to look at what is right in front of us and meticulously analyze the facts and connect them – not as we might wish them to be but as they are, a Church that has “closed its eyes” will begin to see a way out of the crisis that engulfs her."

BOOK REVIEWS

‘THE SECRET OF BENEDICT XVI’ BY ANTONIO SOCCI (ANGELICO PRESS, 2019) 

FROM ROME EDITOR

Is He Still the Pope?

Book Review by Giuseppe Pellegrino
@pellegrino2020

“Total darkness occurs when everyone closes their eyes.”

Antonio Socci opens his investigation into the mystery of Pope Benedict XVI by noting a paradox: “The present crisis has a cause that is searched for in every possible place, while the whole time it is sitting right in front of everyone’s eyes, in plain view.” The cause that no one wants to look at, says Socci, is “a crisis of the loss of faith, of modernism and apostasy that has spread even to the leadership of the Church.” If we are willing to look at what is right in front of us, says Socci, and meticulously analyze the facts and connect them – not as we might wish them to be but as they are, a Church that has “closed its eyes” will begin to see a way out of the crisis that engulfs her.  Socci, a veteran Italian journalist who has already delved into the mystery behind the story of the secrets of Fatima with The Fourth Secret of Fatima and the subterfuge surrounding the 2013 conclave with Non è Francesco, again delivers a highly-detailed investigation of a topic of extreme interest for the Church in the midst of the present unprecedented crisis, inviting his readers to a more deeply spiritual reflection on “the signs of the times.”

9781621384588_cov.indd

The most obvious “sign”, and the central focus of the book’s investigation, is the fact of the enduring presence of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI at the heart of the Vatican and the Church. Since his resignation on February 28, 2013, “Joseph Ratzinger has remained in the ‘enclosure of Peter’ [the Vatican], still signs his name Benedict XVI, still calls himself ‘pope emeritus,’ still uses the papal heraldic insignia and continues to dress as pope” (p. 62). In contrast to past popes who resigned, Benedict has not chosen to leave the Vatican or to return to the state of a cardinal or bishop. Rather, he has done something unexpected (above and beyond the extraordinarily unexpected act of resignation), resigning without fully resigning, what Socci calls a “relative” resignation: “It is evident that, although he made a relative resignation of the papacy (but of what sort?), he has intended to remain as pope, although in an enigmatic way and in an unprecedented form, which has not been explained – at least not yet” (p. 61).

Stating the above facts will generate myriad reactions in the present ecclesiastical climate, which has clearly entered a new phase of volatility since the announcement on Sunday, January 12, 2020 of the publication of a new book co-authored by Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah defending the wisdom of the Church’s tradition of priestly celibacy. Some observers are convinced that Benedict ought to remain silent, while others express frustration that Benedict has not chosen to say more about the apostasy and confusion that the Bergoglian revolution promotes and encourages in any number of ways. But Socci takes a step back from the cacophony and invites his readers to reflect and contemplate: there is something unprecedented and mysterious going on in the Church in which the Holy Spirit is at work, something which nobody yet fully understands, and which calls for silence, intercession, and prayer as a more effective response to the battle going on in the Church and the world rather than raised voices and critical judgment. The first one giving the example of such a prayerful response is Benedict XVI himself, who has freely chosen (perhaps directed to do so, Socci wonders, by God himself?) to respond to the crisis by offering himself in intercessory prayer for the Church and for the world.

The Origin of the Drama

In Part One of The Secret of Benedict XVI, “The Mystical, Economic, and Political Origin of the Drama,” Socci meticulously documents the facts of the present situation in the Church, in which he observes that, since 2005, there have de facto been two parties struggling for control, those favoring Ratzinger and those favoring Bergoglio. These two parties may be broadly defined as those favoring a revolution in the Church (the party of Bergoglio) and those who oppose such a revolution by calling for fidelity to the Tradition of the Church (the party of Ratzinger). Far from being limited to an intra-Church struggle, Socci observes that there is a movement of “neo-capitalist globalization which is ideologically anti-Catholic” seeking to dominate the entire world, and that it is this anti-Catholic ideological movement which has actively worked to undermine the Church from within by seeking and obtaining the ascendance of Jorge Bergoglio to the papal throne. This “politically correct” secularist ideology, says Socci, was imposed on the world at a new level under “the presidency of Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton”, seeking “the planetary hegemony of the United States and of financial globalization,” and one of the greatest obstacles to this world-wide agenda was the pontificate of Benedict XVI (p. 10). Benedict, who had worked for decades as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith resisting the advance of Modernism within the Catholic Church, became as pope “a huge sign of contradiction with respect to the cultural mainstream, the media, and the designs of worldly powers who were aiming at a true and proper ‘normalization’ of the Catholic Church by means of what they called an ‘opening to modernity,’ that is, a Protestantization, that would sweep away the Church’s fundamental distinguishing marks” (p. 12). Socci maintains that Benedict was aware of the enormity of this global and ecclesial struggle from the moment of his election, and he sought to help the Christian people become aware of it by placing these extraordinary and surprising words in the midst of his homily at his solemn enthronement as Pope on April 24, 2005: “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves” (p. 14).

Socci advances the thesis that these wolves were and are far more than hostile elements within the Church, but also include geo-political elements seeking the political ascendance of Islam and also the marginalization of Russia. Benedict got in the way of both of these agendas because of his willingness to challenge Islam to embrace a dialogue based on reason that would cause it to renounce violence (recall his 2006 Regensburg speech) and also his ecumenical overtures to the Russian Orthodox Church. The “wolves” of globalization sought to stir up a revolution within the Church analogous to that of the “Arab spring” in the Muslim world. Just as the United States government actively sought regime change in other nations to advance its political agenda, so the Obama/Clinton alliance worked in coordination with financier George Soros to seek to “change the priorities of the Catholic Church.” Socci also documents other elements which sought the election of Bergoglio as pope, who upon his election as Pope Francis embraced an agenda fully in accord with the secularist agenda of Obama/United Nations globalization: “catastrophic environmentalism (with pollution and global warming replacing the notions of sin and original sin), ideological immigrationism (replacing the new commandment), the embrace of Islam and pro-Protestant ecumenism, the obscuring of doctrine and the attack on the sacraments, the abandonment of non-negotiable principles, and a ‘merciful’ opening to new sexual practices and new forms of ‘marital’ union” (p. 56). It would be difficult to find a more succinct summary and explanation of the agenda of the Francis pontificate than this list given by Socci, complete with geo-political context.

The Review continues below

unnamed1

The Mystery and Paradox of the “Pope Emeritus”

Part Two of Il Segreto is called “That Which Is Not Understood: Benedict Is Pope Forever.” Socci introduces the section with a quotation from the Italian author Gianni Baget Bozzo’s 2001 book L’Anticristo: “The history of the Church is full of states of exception” (p. 58), along with a quote from St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Ephesians which Benedict XVI used in his preface to Cardinal Robert Sarah’s 2017 book The Power of Silence: “It is better to remain in silence and be, than to speak and not be” (p. 59). It is evident that Socci finds these words to correspond, respectively, to Benedict and Francis.

Socci analyzes in great detail Benedict’s various statements prior to his resignation in February 2013 and notes that Benedict clearly “with full liberty” intended that there would be “a conclave to elect a new Supreme Pontiff,” and yet simultaneously declared, “I wish also to serve devotedly the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer” (p. 68). He further specified on February 27, 2013, that his “yes” in accepting his election as pope was and is irrevocable: “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” Benedict also declared: “I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty” (p. 79). What is this novelty? According to the canonist Stefano Violi, whom Socci cites, it is “the limited resignation of the active exercise of the munus” of the Roman Pontiff (p. 82). This entirely new action by Benedict – which makes his pontificate, in the controversial words of Archbishop Georg Gänswein, a “pontificate of exception” – was necessitated by the emergence of an entirely new situation in the life of the Church. The present crisis – unprecedented in all of Church history – has called for an unprecedented response. Benedict’s “choice to become ‘pope emeritus’ represents something enormous and contains a ‘secret’ of colossal importance for the Church” (p. 85). There is clearly, in Socci’s analysis, something which Pope Benedict is holding back and not saying, “a true and personal call from God,” “a mystery the pope is guarding – that cannot be revealed, at least for now (p. 101). Socci proposes that this “secret of Benedict XVI” is “exquisitely spiritual,” rooted in wisdom “according to God” which the present world – and also the present Church – cannot understand.

Socci observes the many ways that Benedict’s present life and witness is bearing great fruit for the Church during the “Bergoglian epoch.” First and foremost are the rich texts of his papal Magisterium, which remain a guiding light for the Church because they are in union with the unbroken Tradition of the perennial Magisterium (the appearance of the new book, From The Depths Of Our Hearts, only underscores Socci’s point). There is also of course his unceasing prayer for the Church offered within the “enclosure of Peter.” But Socci further avers that Benedict’s restrained silence has done far more to prevent the Bergoglian Revolution from doing all that it would like to than most people yet realize. Socci likens Benedict to the figure of Christ silent before Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor, saying that “the same silent presence…has averted the most serious doctrinal rifts” from taking place within the Church, because as long as Benedict is alive the Bergoglian revolutionaries know that one word of condemnation from the Pope Emeritus could de-legitimize Francis in the eyes of much of the Church (p. 116). Benedict has chosen, not to abandon the flock to the wolves, but rather to resist the wolves with the logic of the Gospel, with “the weakness of God” that is “stronger than human strength” (1 Cor 1:25), aware that this is an historical moment when, as he observed at Fatima in 2010, “the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church” (p. 128).

The Connection to Fatima

Socci concludes his work with Part Three entitled “Fatima and the Last Pope.” He draws on his prior extensive study of the message of Fatima, seeing it as a key to understanding the present moment in the Church, and reminding his readers that the message of Fatima emphasized the strong link between the intercession of the Mother of God and the protection of the pope. At the center of the vision of Fatima there are two persons: “the ‘bishop dressed in white’ and an old pope,” and Socci ponders whether perhaps this vision could refer to the present situation, noting that on May 21, 2017, while visiting Fatima, Pope Francis called himself “the bishop dressed in white.” Socci sees in Benedict a figure similar to the pope in the children’s vision: “half trembling, with halting steps, afflicted with suffering and pain crossing a great city half in ruins” (p. 141). Socci undertakes a detailed examination of overlooked words of the children of Fatima, stating that the Blessed Virgin told them that if humanity did not do penance and convert, “the world will end” (p. 152). Sister Lucia declared in an interview in 1957 that “Russia will be the instrument chosen by God to punish the entire world, if we do not first obtain the conversion of that disgraced nation” (p. 155). Implicit in Socci’s analysis and reflection is the sense that the outcome of the present crisis is of the utmost importance for the fate, not only of the entire Church, but also of the entire world.

Socci’s final observation is that the medieval “Prophecy of Malachy,” which proposed to give a mysterious title to each future pope, ends with Benedict XVI.  After this pope it mysteriously says that there follows “the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church” and the figure of “Peter the Roman”. When asked in 2016 whether this prophecy could mean that he is “the last one to represent the figure of the pope as we have known him up until now,” Benedict mysteriously replied, “Everything is possible [Tutto puo’ essere].” Further asked if this would mean that he would be seen as the last pope of the old world or the first pope of the new world, Benedict replied, “I would say both. I don’t belong to the old world any more, but the new world isn’t really here yet” (p. 166). Socci understands these astonishing comments to mean that both the world and the Church is on the cusp of epochal upheavals, inviting his readers to further reflection on the various prophecies in Scripture of the destruction of the Temple and on paragraphs 675-677 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the final trial of the Church.

Socci writes with an engaging and dramatic style, inviting the reader to understand that something far greater than has yet been understood is at work in the life of the Church and in human history. He offers a thoughtful proposal, and an invitation to pray and reflect and ponder, not certainty or legal explanations. This book, with its meticulous journalistic analysis and spiritual reflection, offers hope to a discouraged Church and an invitation to prayerfully believe that perhaps more good is at work in a hidden way than the obvious evil which currently is so active within both the Church and on the global stage. Socci offers his work as a gift of love for the Church, broken and battered, to reflect upon and ponder. “It is not power which redeems,” said Pope Benedict in his inaugural address, ‘but love.” It is this same love which Socci says Benedict is daily offering to the Church by his unprecedented and heroic, albeit widely misunderstood witness: “He is the great sentinel of God of our time. It is he who has raised a great wall of defense for all of us in the time of the mysterium iniquitatis” (p. 147).

Lies and deception got us into this mess. The truth of the facts will get us out

May this book inspire many to pray ever more incessantly and fervently for and with our Holy Father, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still The Pope? (Angelico Press, 2019).

https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Benedict-XVI-Still-Pope/dp/1621384586

(The title was changed from the original Italian “Why He Is Still Pope”)

Follow Giuseppe Pellegrino on Twitter @pellegrino2020

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

WELCOME ON BOARD, MICHAEL VORIS, BETTER LATE THAN NEVER !!!

NEWS

HAS MICHAEL VORIS JOINED THE PPBXVI MOVEMENT?

FROM ROME EDITOR3 COMMENTS

FromRome.Info cannot refrain from printing this BREAKING News on Catholic Social Media: Michael Voris appears to have crossed the lines of the Bergoglian controlled narrative and indicated that it is legitimate to question the validity of Pope Benedict’s Renunciation!

Those Catholics who follow Canon Law and thus continue to hold Pope Benedict XVI as the only true pope — his resignation being canonically null and void — are members of what FromRome.Info calls the PPBXVI Movement, of which we are proud members ourselves.

Michael Voris crossed over no-man’s land on January 18, 2020, when Church Militant, his Flagship Video News Agency, published an English translation of an interview with the renowned Italian controversialist, Antonio Socci — without editing out his comments. That interview was entitled in English, Interview with Antonio Socci: ‘We are seeing the leaders of the Church work against Her.’

In that interview, which merits to be read in its entirety, Socci responds to Aldo Maria Valli’s question on Pope Benedict:

There is one question that is very close to your heart and that you have studied thoroughly: the resignation of Benedict XVI. Why did Ratzinger step aside? Is it possible that he did not have any idea what would happen next? Or did he know very well and desire that certain processes already underway would reach extreme consequences in order to better oppose them?

Also in this case, no one can pretend to know the personal thoughts of Benedict XVI. Certainly Pope Bergoglio was not elected by him, but by a College of Cardinals that clearly had no knowledge of the candidate during a conclave and pre-conclave of which there are many details that still need to be clarified.

But, as far as what concerns the resignation and his choice to be “Pope Emeritus,” I believe that, based on the documents in hand, it is now clear that Benedict XVI did not intend to resign — or totally resign — the Petrine munus.

As Archbishop Ganswein explained in his famous conference at the Gregorian University:

Both before and after his resignation, Benedict understood and understands his task to be a participation in such a “Petrine ministry.” He left the papal throne, and yet, with the step taken on February 11, 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry at all.

There is another passage from Archbishop Ganswein that I would like to highlight:

He has not abandoned the office of Peter, a thing which would be completely impossible for him following his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.

To me, these seem to be explosive words (and they have never been denied by Pope Benedict). The closest collaborator of Benedict XVI explains to us that for Joseph Ratzinger “the acceptance of the office” of Peter is “irrevocable” and to abandon it is “totally impossible.” Although the Vatican continues to pretend that everything is clear, we the Christian people are allowed to ask questions about what really happened in February 2013 and what is the place of Benedict XVI in the Church today.

Significance of Socci’s remarks

If Benedict did not renounce the petrine munus, as canon 332 §2 says, then he is still the Pope, because that canon requires the renunciation of the munus for a papal resignation!

While this affirmation is not news for Antonio Socci — he has written several books on the Renunciation — it is news for Church Militant to allow such a view to be published on their website.

This remarkable step for Voris is even more newsworthy, when you recall that not so long ago Voris was rumored on social media to have said that Cardinal Burke was insisting that he not criticize Pope Francis. But the Cardinal said in October that those who doubt Francis is the pope are extremists. It seems then, that Voris has realized that Cardinal Burke is no longer an infallible authority on reality, and that common sense and fidelity to the truth require a re-assessment of the historical facts.

It also means that, in just 1 week, the Catholic world has seen two notable Catholic journalists move out of the camp of “Bergoglio is certainly the pope” and into or towards the Catholic Fold, which says, “A doubtfully resigned pope, is still the true pope, whether he thinks so or not.” By two, I mean Michael Voris and Diane Montagna. If you count Aldo Maria Valli, the confidant of Archbishop Viganò, the implications are even more newsworthy.

Viganò caused tongues to wag in Italy, when in his recent denunciation of Archbishop Gänswein, in the pages of La Verità, he called Benedict XVI both “pope” and “supreme pontiff”, titles which Bergoglians are fierce to insist belong to Bergoglio alone. That intervention of Viganò was published in full, in English translation, by FromRome.Info.

For everything on the PPBXVI Movement’s canonical position on the Renunciation, see ppbxvi.org.

_______

CREDITS: The featured image is a screenshot of the page from Church Militant which features the translation of Valli’s interview of Antonio Socci. The citations from the interview are take verbatim from the same page, as per fair use practice. FromRome.info, however, has corrected the lack of Bold Facing in Valli’s question to Socci.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Pope Benedict XVI, THE PRISONER IN THE VATICAN

NEWS

POPE BENEDICT IS NOT ONLY A PRISONER, HIS GUARDS HAVE BEEN CAREFUL SELECTED

FROM ROME EDITORLEAVE A COMMENT

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

In a truly great piece of investigative journalism, Ann Barnhardt has just published a devastating exposé of what kind of staff have been placed in the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery to monitor, watch and guard Pope Benedict during the last neigh 7 years. As I reported last year, it is clear that Pope Benedict has been imprisoned, in a certain sort of way. Information control is the principal objective. Even George Neumayr admitted this in a piece in The American Spectator, this Sunday past, entitled, The Prisoner of the Vatican.

Barnhardt’s report is astounding. You cannot make this up. Members of a corruption riddled organization with ties to all the money and the power to protect the worst of their own members.

This report is truly troubling. To think of what the Holy Father must have had to endure for nearly 7 years, surrounded by those loyal to his captors, betrayed by all, and not only by his former secretary!

In a post entitled, Memo to Pope Benedict’s Prison Guards: Increased Sequestration and Total SilenceBarnhardt explains the networking behind Memores Domini, the group of women who assist Pope Benedict in all the necessities of the day.

Her report opens, thus:

Pope Benedict is surrounded by “minders” from the “Communion and Liberation” organization. His household staff consists of lay women who swear creepy oaths of obedience to Communion and Liberation and its head, Father Julián Carrón. These women are called “Memores Domini”.

C&L is similar to the Legionaries of Christ in that it seeks first financial power, and is massively financially corrupt. It is also riddled with horrific sexual corruption. It would not be unreasonable to describe C&L as the Italian analogue to the Legionaries of Christ. Both market themselves as “soft-right”, “moderate-conservative” groups in order to maximize their grift, targeting the wealthy “elite” and those with political power. C&L brags that through its top members, it has connection to over €100 billion in assets.

She also quotes an ominous suggestion by a leading member of the same umbrella organization, Communione e Liberazione, who is insisting that Benedict shut up and be put under tighter control.  And I think Barnhardt is correct in her interpretation.

Ann Barnhardt’s personal website, Barnhardt.biz, is a treasure trove of information on the corruption in the Church, and is a highly recommended read. If you want to comment on her article, here below, you are welcome to do so, because her site does not have comments.

_https://fromrome.info/2020/01/21/pope-benedict-is-not-only-a-prisoner-his-guards-have-been-careful-selected/_______

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screen shot of the article at Barnhard’s website. The quotes above are from the original article, and comply with fair use.

+ + +

Support FromRome.Info

Help us take on the established Catholic Media who are controlled opposition. They are promoting schism from Pope Benedict, and remain silent at the heresies and schisms of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We cannot let the St. Gallen Mafia win the information war, which they are presently doing through controlled media. — TO FIGHT THIS WAR we need your generous financial support. — Funds go to Ordo Militaris Inc., and are capital gifts for this Apostolate.

$10.00

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

PRESIDENT TRUMP CANNOT BUILD THE WALL ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER FAST ENOUGH TO STEM THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL PEOPLE FROM ENTERING THE United States AS THS POST ILLUSTRATES

Hundreds of US-Bound Migrants Storm Border, Rush into Mexico

By Jack Davis
Published January 21, 2020 at 7:50amShare on FacebookTweetEmailPrint

In a chaotic scramble, Honduran migrants seeking to enter the U.S. illegally tried to cross into Mexico on Monday.

Mexican authorities used tear gas and troops in an effort to contain migrants who waded across the river separating Mexico and Guatemala in an effort to reach America’s southern border.

The day began with a caravan estimated to hold more than 4,000 migrants massed on a bridge spanning the river, to be met by Mexican officials who, as promised to President Donald Trump, would not allow them entry.\

Shortly after noon, a group numbering in the hundreds then tried to wade across the knee-deep Suchiate River that separates the two countries.

As the migrants crossed, Mexican National Guard troops were there to meet them.

Many migrants successfully found their way around the troops, while others were blocked from entering Mexico by the guardsmen, some of whom were hit by rocks thrown by the migrants.

It was unclear at the end of the day how many migrants had successfully made it past the troops and into Mexico.

Many migrants remained at the edge of the river and some returned to Guatemala, according to The Associated Press.teleSUR English@telesurenglish

#BREAKING Migrants from new caravan cross Suchiate river and have reached Mexico.

Embedded video

721

Find it weird how headlines read “Migrants clash with Mexican forces” in order to make Mexico look bad but in these videos the Mexican “National Guard” and a family are being attacked and they are literally shielding them from ppl of the Migrant Caravan throwing bottles at them

Embedded video

52Twitter Ads info and privacy31 people are talking about this

Mexico’s National Migration Institute told the migrants that it planned to send undocumented foreigners to immigration stations and then to their home countries if they were in Mexico illegally.

R

Reuters reported that many migrants who had crossed into Mexico were detained in a bus and several pickup trucks parked a couple of miles from the border.


Leaders of the caravan wrote a letter to President Andrés Manuel López Obrador asking that “all the members of the caravan receive the permission to move freely through Mexican territory. We are committed to you and your government to maintain order and discipline in the places where we transit,” according to The Washington Post

Mexico’s migration agency said in reply that it was “committed to maintaining a safe, orderly and regular migration.”

“The legal provisions do not allow for transitory migration,” the agency said.

Many migrants said they were not turning back.

“I never expected Mexico to react like this,” Brayan Hernandez, 26, who carried his 1-year-old, Daisy, said, according to NPR. “It makes me angry. We didn’t attack them. …

“Our goal is to go to the United States. We aren’t turning around here.”

Jack DavisContributor, NewsSummary More Info Recent Posts ContactJack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

THE TIMES THEY ARE A'CHANGING !!!

OUR LORD TOLD US TO READ THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.

A diocese smells the coffee: starts planning for decline of the Novus Ordo and growth of the TLM

Posted on 20 January 2020 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

A sink hole.

The numbers are going to drop big time, both at the altar and in the pews.

What are we going to do with our churches and other buildings?

Some dioceses are starting to think inside the box labelled “T”.

However, a group that is steadily growing are those who want Tradition.   The TLM is growing.

A friend of mine used to say provocatively that one day the Novus Ordo would disappear and only the TLM would remain.  I didn’t buy that at the time.  These days, I’m not so sure.

Frankly, as I have written before, I think that when the sink hole opens two groups will remain strong and vibrant: evangelical converts and charismatics and, on the other hand, traditionalists.   Eventually these two groups will move closer and closer together and start to cross pollinate.  As a matter of fact, I think that it is already happening.

There will be some tentions in that contact, but the results will prove to be amazing.  I might see them in my life, but… who knows?  Motus in finem velocior.

So, I – who am President of the Tridentine Mass Society of the Diocese of Madison – am pretty chuffed by a Tweet I spotted today in my feed.  Take a look.JuventutemDC@juventutemDC

We’d like to highlight this encouraging item from Windsor Latin Mass via @AlexanderBegin, which is a welcome bit of good news, and which we hope is a realization not confined to just that one chancery.@SteveSkojec @Juventutem_MI @FIJuventutem @fatherz @LMSChairman https://twitter.com/AlexanderBegin/status/1219026089399537665 …

View image on Twitter

Alex Begin@AlexanderBeginIn the January 19, 2020 Tridentine Community News: Musical Talent Hidden in Our Midst; Priest Training in Saginaw; Third of Four London Episodes of Extraordinary Faith Now Viewable on YouTube and Vimeo; Interesting Chancery Perspectivehttp://www.windsorlatinmass.org/wtnews/200119.pdf …55Twitter Ads info and privacy33 people are talking about this

In some places churches are being entrusted to traditional groups.  Those churches are being saved from closure and loss.

Traditional sacred worship and traditional preaching with strong dedication to works of mercy.

Watch what happens!

We have to think inside the box again.

This merits some discussion and ideas.Please share!FacebookGmailEmailPrintFriendlyPrintPinterestKindle ItWhatsApp

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)View all posts by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf →This entry was posted in Hard-Identity CatholicismOur Catholic IdentityThe Coming StormThe future and our choices and tagged demographicsnones. Bookmark the permalink. ← ASK FATHER: Glass chalices…. again?OLDIE PODCAzT 127: The Eve of St. Agnes and a Bleak Midwinter →

23 Responses to A diocese smells the coffee: starts planning for decline of the Novus Ordo and growth of the TLM

https://abyssum.org/2020/01/21/ggggg/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment